Back in the mid-1970s, the General Assembly finally implemented a home rule constitutional amendment that gave power over local decisions to local governments. But not totally.

Critics say the enabling legislation stopped short of the goal, with lawmakers holding on to certain powers and creating an odd arrangement between local and state government in South Carolina. The debate over what powers counties should have and what powers lawmakers should have has continued ever since.

Now Gov. Mark Sanford has entered the fray, so far vetoing eight local bills because they violated either home rule provisions or a separate constitutional prohibition against special legislation. In addition to five bills vetoed in February, he struck down three more Wednesday while the House debated the state's budget crisis. Sanford says he wants to put pressure on the system to force lawmakers to change the way they do business.

Whether they'll do that is hard to predict, but it's a question with a long history.

For most of its existence, much of South Carolina's local government, with the exception of that of incorporated towns and cities, was run from Columbia by local delegations of lawmakers. Reformers argued that such decisions would be made better by county councils, a system that had developed successfully in other states. By the early 1970s, county governments had been established statewide and the Legislature agreed to put a home rule amendment on the 1972 ballot.

But reformers contended that the enabling home rule legislation stopped short of their goals, creating a hybrid system in which local legislative delegations retainedvarious local appointments and powers. Supporters contended the home rule compromise was the best they could do politically.

The Charleston County Election Commission and Board of Voter Registration, which would have been combined under the bill Sanford vetoed, are a good example of the odd arrangements created by South Carolina's system.

Members of the board and commission essentially are appointed by the local legislative delegation. The people who work for the board and the commission are county employees, and the budgets for the two bodies are set by county council. At the Board of Voter Registration, some state-appointed board members have been hired by the county as staff.

Local lawmakers wanted to streamline local elections by combining the offices, a measure similar to one passed for Berkeley County during the tenure of Gov. David Beasley, who let the bill become law without his signature.

So why isn't it good for Charleston County?

Sanford says it is, but he argues that either local officials should have the power to combine the boards or the change should be handled through general legislation -- not by county-specific or special legislation, which is illegal under the state Constitution.

The governor's argument isn't a new one -- previous governors have made the same case from time to time -- but it hasn't stopped county legislative delegations from routinely approving bills that affect only their counties, such as one forgiving a snow day for Greenville County schools and another that would change the number of members on a York County elections board, both of which drew a gubernatorial veto that lawmakers have since overridden.

The immediate problem is that local officials can't combine the boards on their own. That authority still belongs to the Legislature. While the Legislature could write a statewide bill addressing the organization of local election offices or granting counties authority over them, no one has or appears likely to do so.

Sanford has offered no specifics for a road map to change, just a temporary roadblock to draw attention to his reform effort. That leaves it up to legislators to change the system.

Are they willing to let go of any power, the one asset politicians covet?

Not hardly.

Will we see legislation anytime soon that makes "home rule" a true phrase?

On the contrary.

Just recently, Summerville Town Administrator Mark Williams complained to Town Council members that legislation had been introduced to restrict municipalities' powers to raise revenue. One such bill would restrict local governments from raising taxes more than once every two years and then only by referendum.

Mike Cone, the executive director of the S.C. Association of Counties, knows of no pending home rule legislation.

"We've had more home rule than we can afford," said Rep. John Graham Altman III, R-Charleston. "The general sentiment of the Legislature is that home rule has not been very effective. It's been fragmented. It's not served any useful purpose that I can think of."

Meanwhile, Sanford promises to keep vetoing local bills -- even those he likes -- to make his point. Lawmakers will keep looking for the votes to override his vetoes. And nobody foresees a big push to revisit the provisions of home rule.

Given the current sentiment at the Statehouse, Sanford's hand could cramp and his veto pen run out of ink before that happens.

Insight is a regular feature in which Post and Courier writers take a look at the news behind the news. Is there a topic or an issue you'd like for us to explore? Please send suggestions to Insight, c/o Robert Behre, The Post and Courier, 134 Columbus St., Charleston, SC 29403.